D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[Cadence]

A practical upshot of this will be PCs who are not deeply embedded/interconnected in the social aspects of the fiction.

The number of people I know, even the number of people who are my friends, would outstrip my capacity to note them all on a PC sheet. So if my PC knows only those people whom I write down, in advance, as part of the PC build process, the upshot is that my PC won't know many people.

That can be fine - it will create a feel about the PCs similar to Conan in The Tower of the Elephant (contrast, say, Conan in People of the Black Circle) - but obviously won't resolve the concern expressed upthread, of wanting players to have their PCs be more interconnected with the setting.

It feels like knowing people I didn't come up with during downtime or meet previously in play can still be a thing, without me as a player needing to come up with their names and traits as I'm playing.

"I go see if any of the usuals I play cards with are at the neighborhood bar." (as a character that might have mentioned looking for card games before or have cards on their list from a background)

"Are any of the neighborhood urchins I recognize around." (as a person who lives in the neighborhood)

"Does my usual armorer have any contacts who would know about the teamsters who bring in ore?" (as someone who has adventured for a while from a base town and wears armor)

"I go talk to someone at the brewers guild that I'm on good terms with" (as someone with brewing as a background)

"Do any of my neighbors have a son about the age of the person we're trying to impersonate?" (as someone living somewhere during downtime)

It feels kind of similar to:

"I use my old regiments battle cry." (ex-mercenary)

"I spin an upbeat song about a local legendary hero" or "I sing a popular local drinking song that would go over well with the men but not their wives" (bard)

 

[Micah Sweet]

A practical upshot of this will be PCs who are not deeply embedded/interconnected in the social aspects of the fiction.

The number of people I know, even the number of people who are my friends, would outstrip my capacity to note them all on a PC sheet. So if my PC knows only those people whom I write down, in advance, as part of the PC build process, the upshot is that my PC won't know many people.

That can be fine - it will create a feel about the PCs similar to Conan in The Tower of the Elephant (contrast, say, Conan in People of the Black Circle) - but obviously won't resolve the concern expressed upthread, of wanting players to have their PCs be more interconnected with the setting.

Again, I just can't accept that an inability to author extra-PC content in session automatically makes players less inclined to engage in the world. I have a remarkable inability to alter reality outside of my own actions in real life, but I still engage with the world, and I generally try to play my PCs as if they exist in the world. I don't see a necessary connection.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It feels like knowing people I didn't come up with during downtime or meet previously in play can still be a thing, without me as a player needing to come up with their names and traits as I'm playing.

"I go see if any of the usuals I play cards with are at the neighborhood bar." (as a character that might have mentioned looking for card games before or have cards on their list from a background)

"Are any of the neighborhood urchins I recognize around." (as a person who lives in the neighborhood)

"Does my usual armorer have any contacts who would know about the teamsters who bring in ore?" (as someone who has adventured for a while from a base town and wears armor)

"I go talk to someone at the brewers guild that I'm on good terms with" (as someone with brewing as a background)

"Do any of my neighbors have a son about the age of the person we're trying to impersonate?" (as someone living somewhere during downtime)

It feels kind of similar to:

"I use my old regiments battle cry." (ex-mercenary)

"I spin an upbeat song about a local legendary hero" or "I sing a popular local drinking song that would go over well with the men but not their wives" (bard)

That seems a reasonable compromise.

 

[Lanefan]

These remarks imply that you'd be happy with Circles in Burning Wheel and Torchbearer, or with the MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic system for establishing Resources (which can include contacts) by spending a Plot Point.

But I don't think that's the case.

Plot Points are, I assume, some sort of meta-mechanic that allow players to affect the fiction by bringing in previously-unknown elements when it is to their advantage to do so? If yes, I would either find a way of removing them from the system or not use the system.

 

[overgeeked]

That’s kinda the point about gamers and how they say they want “story” in their games. They can and do everything in their (sometimes considerable) power to drain every single obstacle of tension and trivialize every problem. That’s smart play in a game, but it makes for a rather dull story. So the DM pushes for obstacles and problems that aren’t easily overcome with pressing a button on the character sheet and/or a simple die roll...and in response, gamers do what? Complain, mostly.

 

[overgeeked]

These remarks imply that you'd be happy with Circles in Burning Wheel and Torchbearer, or with the MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic system for establishing Resources (which can include contacts) by spending a Plot Point.

But I don't think that's the case.

Therefore I think that your remarks aren't setting out your full range of opinions on the matter.

Plot points in MHR don’t quite work the same way as the sister in the mayor’s office example. You don’t get to slap down a plot point and summon a resource out of the ether where no such thing was established beforehand to obviate an obstacle. The specific limitation is you have to have a skill (specialty) that’s directly related, the resource you gain is represented in the fiction as some person or thing you’re calling on for help, and it’s explicitly temporary. Importantly, they don’t make anything automatic, rather help you in a small way (+1d6 or +1d8, in a system where you regularly roll 5 or 6d10 or 12 for things).

So no, you don’t “slap down a plot point” and automatically get an audience with the mayor…much less automatically get their cooperation. If you had the right skill, you could plop down the plot point and call on the mayor to help you (adding one die to your big pool) to overcome an obstacle, but again, not automatic success at the task. And it’s still limited to making sense in the fiction.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Plot points in MHR don’t quite work the same way as the sister in the mayor’s office example. You don’t get to slap down a plot point and summon a resource out of the ether where no such thing was established beforehand to obviate an obstacle. The specific limitation is you have to have a skill (specialty) that’s directly related, the resource you gain is represented in the fiction as some person or thing you’re calling on for help, and it’s explicitly temporary. Importantly, they don’t make anything automatic, rather help you in a small way (+1d6 or +1d8, in a system where you regularly roll 5 or 6d10 or 12 for things).

So no, you don’t “slap down a plot point” and automatically get an audience with the mayor…much less automatically get their cooperation. If you had the right skill, you could plop down the plot point and call on the mayor to help you (adding one die to your big pool) to overcome an obstacle, but again, not automatic success at the task. And it’s still limited to making sense in the fiction.

The confusion I have here is that "audience with the mayor" is being treated as if it's the win condition -- there's nothing else to this challenge, you get the audience you get what you want. I find this very strange. Surely gaining an audience is just one step, now you have to make your case, negotiate an outcome, and then hold up whatever end of the bargain you have, yes? Dropping in a sister to get the audience just seems like it addresses a small part of the whole, but it's being treated as if it's an "I win" button. So very odd!

 

[Lanefan]

The confusion I have here is that "audience with the mayor" is being treated as if it's the win condition -- there's nothing else to this challenge, you get the audience you get what you want. I find this very strange. Surely gaining an audience is just one step, now you have to make your case, negotiate an outcome, and then hold up whatever end of the bargain you have, yes? Dropping in a sister to get the audience just seems like it addresses a small part of the whole, but it's being treated as if it's an "I win" button. So very odd!

Any big win is usually made up of a whole bunch of smaller wins; gaining the audience in the first place is one of these small wins.

 

[overgeeked]

The confusion I have here is that "audience with the mayor" is being treated as if it's the win condition -- there's nothing else to this challenge, you get the audience you get what you want. I find this very strange. Surely gaining an audience is just one step, now you have to make your case, negotiate an outcome, and then hold up whatever end of the bargain you have, yes? Dropping in a sister to get the audience just seems like it addresses a small part of the whole, but it's being treated as if it's an "I win" button. So very odd!

As said, it’s one step. But it’s an example. To me the issues are narrative control, resources, and obviating obstacles. The players should never be able to infinitely declare obstacles overcome. That’s boring. There should be risks of failure (rolls) and/or costs (spending limited resources) involved.

So in the sister/mayor example we have a goal (talk to the mayor) and an obstacle (the mayor’s too busy). This should, of course, be tied to a further goal and an obstacle that, hopefully, the mayor can help with. It shouldn’t be a self-contained goal/obstacle unto itself.

We have two ways of handling it. 1) the player simply declares the obstacle overcome and goal attained, or; 2) some risk or cost (or both) to overcoming the obstacle and attaining the goal.

I see no point to 1 as it’s dull and boring. The player can declare they cross the street or open an unlocked door (generally speaking) without need of a roll, risk, or cost. If any and all obstacles are as easily overcome, by simple declaration, we’re not playing a game, much less somehow playing through a story. Because, again, stories have drama and tension. The players simply declaring “I win” to every obstacle completely lacks drama and tension.

But, equally, you don’t need 2 unless there’s drama and tension to evoke. Time pressure, for example. Unless it really matters that the PCs talk to the mayor right now today, it doesn’t matter that she can’t see you until next week. So they’re willing to risk a setback and/or pay a cost.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As said, it’s one step. But it’s an example. To me the issues are narrative control, resources, and obviating obstacles. The players should never be able to infinitely declare obstacles overcome. That’s boring. There should be risks of failure (rolls) and/or costs (spending limited resources) involved.

So in the sister/mayor example we have a goal (talk to the mayor) and an obstacle (the mayor’s too busy). This should, of course, be tied to a further goal and an obstacle that, hopefully, the mayor can help with. It shouldn’t be a self-contained goal/obstacle unto itself.

We have two ways of handling it. 1) the player simply declares the obstacle overcome and goal attained, or; 2) some risk or cost (or both) to overcoming the obstacle and attaining the goal.

I see no point to 1 as it’s dull and boring. The player can declare they cross the street or open an unlocked door (generally speaking) without need of a roll, risk, or cost. If any and all obstacles are as easily overcome, by simple declaration, we’re not playing a game, much less somehow playing through a story. Because, again, stories have drama and tension. The players simply declaring “I win” to every obstacle completely lacks drama and tension.

But, equally, you don’t need 2 unless there’s drama and tension to evoke. Time pressure, for example. Unless it really matters that the PCs talk to the mayor right now today, it doesn’t matter that she can’t see you until next week. So they’re willing to risk a setback and/or pay a cost.

I don't see much of a point to "the GM has set the mayor to away, how do you wish to proceed" play really. This reads very much like @pemerton's GM's puzzle box, where the GM has set an obstacle and wants players to overcome it by solving the puzzle the GM has created, and so becomes upset when the players deploy an asset to bypass the puzzle solving. Fictionally, this kind of solution works 100%, it's only in the metagame there's an issue with the GM.

And, again, @pemerton was pretty clear a few times that there should be some kind of check or cost to deploying these assets -- the idea that this is just "the players make up how they solve it this time and the GM is powerless" is a strawman of large proportion. Your sister pens you into the appointment book? Well, she wants something for this or you need to convince her to do so. Unless it's a resource token of some kinds that is spent, in which case it's still paid for.